Yesterday was the Western Pentecost Sunday and also coincided with the 5 year anniversary of an anti-austerity movement in Spain known as 15-M. One precedes the other, will outlast the other but is probably also the source of the other. Watching yesterday it again raised for us the question of the nature, purpose and longevity of a movement. Or to put the question we have in a nutshell – can a movement ever be positioned at the centre?
First a working definition of a movement. A movement has a shared core vision with the conviction that the wider context in which they find themselves has not embraced or does not live by that core vision. The movement believes that the wider context needs to be transformed by, and reflect, the values of that core vision. Hence their raison d’etre is the transformation of the wider community, not their own existence.
This is why I view the early church community primarily defined as a movement, and the very choice of the word ‘church’ / ekklesia indicating this, the word being so political. If we are uncomfortable with protest movements then imagine the nervousness of the Roman empire!
If the primary existence of a movement is wider transformation around values, and that as this is verbalised and acted out (often with great symbolism) the movement is subjected to hardship such as imprisonment, persecution, rumour from those who carry power within the wider context, can a movement ever exercise power from the centre? Are movements meant to fulfil their calling and no longer exist? Or if they continue to exist are they to go on to another level of vision, once their has been a real shift? (Of course I realise that once there has been a shift that can be lost all over again – so maybe movements never fulfil their calling.)
Pentecost echoes with the Creation narrative: wind and speech being at the core of both narratives. Creation was a movement that initiated a process with steps along the way and at each step there was a ‘good’ verdict given. Pentecost likewise was a movement and a movement continuing to this day, and will continue till he comes. That movement was embedded in the wider context – Jerusalem, Judea, then Samaria then the ends of the earth. In every setting a politico-religious context. No different to today with the overarching deification of ‘the invisible hand of the market’ shaping so much of politics and media.
We watch with great interest and with a considerable amount of prayer the movement(s) in Spain that 15-M represents. Indeed as far as we are able we consider that they are in part our responsibility to nurture in the Spirit. If they are to bring about change is the pathway to get to the centre, or in getting to the centre are they inevitably corrupted once they reach that place? Are movements, by definition, to be situated on the edge?
We have some great examples of God positioning people at the centre, but the end result is not always so positive. Daniel seemed to fare better than Joseph for example. It is probably to do with how those from a movement occupy a centre that is the key.
My tentative thoughts are:
- A movement cannot have the goal of being at the centre. It cannot have the mantra of ‘when we are in power…’
- It cannot measure success by the numbers that can be quoted as part of the movement.
- It can only measure its effectiveness by the stories told of the changes others have experienced.
- If those in a movement find themselves in what might be termed ‘the centre’ they must never suggest that this can be seen as success. They must treat it with suspicion, and regularly experience their feet being washed.
- Any who find themselves at the centre have to dispempower themselves and empty out the seat they occupy (I consider pope Francis is so embodying this – the trajectory will lead the wider Catholic church to a new place all-together.
A movement can find itself positioned at the centre, but if there is no de-centralisation, the movement will only have rhetoric left. A religion without power. Pentecost had wind and speech. The wind blows where the wind blows, the effect might be that a spokesperson rises up (Peter) but that element can only rise from a base of ‘and they all spoke’. Movements produce spokespersons, when a movement wants to promote a king, or the spokespersons are transformed to embody kingliness, we know the plot has really been lost.
Is the church today primarily shaped by the movement dynamic? Is 15-M and what has come from that still a movement? Will it still be in 5 year time? We might sadly think ‘no’ to those questions. Even if we do Pentecost predates and will outlast all the above… and every other movement. I still see significant traces of the pentecostal movement inside the church. And I see significant traces beyond the church… for the pentecostal movement is the creation movement. It is the wind and speech movement.